Allow?? I hope you just used the incorrect word here, because it sounds and awful lot like you're advocating forcing a woman to get an abortion if she's raped. If a raped woman wants to keep the child it's her business.

I believe a woman should have the choice to abort a baby if she feels like she would not be able to support it or it would not be safe to deliver. What do you guys think? I am very new to the topic due to my young age. -Shaffy

I haven't seen how old you are. You'll want to be cautious of word choice in the future. A woman who aborts isn't aborting a baby. A baby is a stage of life after birth; prior to that it's a fetus, embryo, or zygote depending on developmental stage. Most abortions are done quite early on, usually at the zygote stage.

Why do you think abortion should be restricted to just those who feel they can't support the child? As Jag stated earlier in the thread, and I'm paraphrasing here, abortion isn't an alternative to parenting; it's an alternative to pregnancy.

I urge you to give that some serious thought. Do some research on just what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy and childbirth. Imagine if it were your body those things would happen to. You who would feel the fatigue, gain the weight, go through the morning sickness, decreased bladder capacity, stretching, swelling, and the constipation. All topped off with hours of painful labor, which might involve the cutting of your genitals lest they tear.[1] You could still die too. It's not as common as it used to be, but women still do die while giving birth, and it's not something you can test for. Add to all this that it costs money. Even if you're insured you pay a copay for each doctor visit, you pay part of the cost of the birth itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html?pagewanted=all. But wait, there's more! How many people over the months of doctor visits and the delivery will need to poke, prod, and look at your genitals? It’s unpleasant enough for those who want to do it in order to have a baby, how horrible for someone who doesn’t want it at all!

Can you think of any situation where your body, and potentially your life, can legally be used against your will solely for the benefit of another person?

One unit of blood taken from your body by the Red Cross can be used to save the lives of three people. Three people who are as alive as you, who have families, hopes, dreams, fears, and responsibilities. Yet what is giving blood in comparison to even a healthy pregnancy? It takes one hour of your day, the needle pinches a bit, you sit still for a while, eat a snack, then go on with your life, plus it costs no more than your time and the gas it takes to get there.[2] Even though it's proven to save lives, you'll never be forced to do it, because only you have the right to your body or any part of it.

A zygote may be alive, but it has as many hopes, dreams, fears, and memories as your blood cells. It's not a person, yet people advocate forcing women to go through much, much more than a simple blood draw to save its life.

Put yourself in my situation. I’m 32, financially stable and in a healthy, happy relationship. Using your stipulations above I should not be allowed an abortion should my birth control fail and I find myself pregnant. I’ve known since I was younger than you probably are now that I do not want a child. I also believe that with 7 BILLION people on this planet that it is unethical to bring even a single unwanted child into being.

So, should I be forced to carry a pregnancy when I find the physical aspects of it abhorrent and the end result (an unwanted child) is something I’m ethically opposed to doing? Imagine the social backlash I would face for putting up for adoption this child I'm perfectly capable of caring for. What if my husband wants to keep it and I don't? He doesn't want kids either, and would never try to force me to carry a pregnancy, but I doubt he'd be cool with adopting out his child once it's born. If my husband agrees with me to adopt it out, he'll then face social backlash too. What if one of our parents or siblings wants to adopt the child? Do we say no, let it go to strangers, and endure their disappointment or anger? Do we let them, then face the child as it grows up and finds out the truth of its birth? I could also die giving birth, then my husband would be stuck with a kid we never wanted whose birth cost him his wife.

There are many, many reasons why a woman might not want to continue a pregnancy. Even something as seemingly simple as not wanting a child is really not simple at all.

I don't have a collection of posts handy, I just know that it comes up a lot when arguing this subject, as an objection to abortion. And though I don't feel like digging through thousands of posts, I do firmly remember that you yourself brought up "potential to grow into a human being" as being the critical factor in granting moral worth to a neonate in a discussion between the two of us on the topic way back. Does my memory fool me? I've asked this twice already in this thread, in different forms...

No, I did not bring up anything as the critical factor in terms of abortion. I said it (potential) was a factor, and one that shouldn't be disregarded, but that isn't the same thing as presenting it as the key deciding factor. That's because I don't think any one thing can or should be considered the critical factor when it comes to abortion. What seems like an important factor to me might not be to someone else, so who am I to try to dictate what the critical factor is?

I refrained from answering before because you have very strong feelings on this subject - stronger than mine, though not by much - and I didn't want to sidetrack things earlier by getting into an argument.

I know enough not to go down that path of passionate argument with you on this topic right now, Jaime.

But on-topic, no matter how much weight one gives to that "potential" - key or not - the same reasoning applies regarding sperm and egg vs fertilized egg. Potential exists in both cases. And I know your reasoning is that without intervention, a fertilized egg will reach maturity. But that's simply counter-factual: Without the intervention of the mother-to-be, a fertilized egg will definitely die.

But on-topic, no matter how much weight one gives to that "potential" - key or not - the same reasoning applies regarding sperm and egg vs fertilized egg. Potential exists in both cases.

You can certainly argue that a sperm and egg cell have potential, but it simply isn't the same thing as with a fertilized egg, never mind an embryo or a baby. For example, for every sperm cell that successfully implants an egg cell, millions upon millions fail and die. Never mind the far greater number of sperm cells that don't get the chance to in the first place. The biological reality is that almost all sperm cells are simply fated to die without ever accomplishing anything meaningful.

So no, the same reasoning doesn't apply, and certainly not in the way you're trying to imply. When virtually all sperm cells are inevitably fated to die, trying to use their 'potential' as justification to 'protect' them fails miserably. The same doesn't apply to egg cells, of course, but the fact of the matter is that an egg cell can't fertilize itself. It's own fate is no different than a sperm cell's, unless there are sperm cells present to change that. And even then, there's a high chance that something will go wrong.

Quote from: Azdgari

And I know your reasoning is that without intervention, a fertilized egg will reach maturity. But that's simply counter-factual: Without the intervention of the mother-to-be, a fertilized egg will definitely die.

When a woman ovulates, her uterus prepares itself for the implantation of a fertilized egg. The 'intervention' you talk about happens automatically. It's true that not all fertilized eggs successfully implant themselves, but it isn't for lack of a place to do so. So this is simply a bad argument.

Taking the 'potential' argument to extremes might work with someone who's never really thought about it. I'll give you that much, at least. But to someone who's seriously considered it and its ramifications, it's simply not effective as an argument, because they've probably already accounted for the points you're trying to bring up, and if they haven't, they have enough of a framework to fit them into.

You can certainly argue that a sperm and egg cell have potential, but it simply isn't the same thing as with a fertilized egg, never mind an embryo or a baby. For example, for every sperm cell that successfully implants an egg cell, millions upon millions fail and die. Never mind the far greater number of sperm cells that don't get the chance to in the first place. The biological reality is that almost all sperm cells are simply fated to die without ever accomplishing anything meaningful.

So no, the same reasoning doesn't apply, and certainly not in the way you're trying to imply. When virtually all sperm cells are inevitably fated to die, trying to use their 'potential' as justification to 'protect' them fails miserably. The same doesn't apply to egg cells, of course, but the fact of the matter is that an egg cell can't fertilize itself. It's own fate is no different than a sperm cell's, unless there are sperm cells present to change that. And even then, there's a high chance that something will go wrong.

The potential lies not with a particular sperm or egg, but with the male and female set of reproductive material collectively. With human intervention, these cells have the potential to form a new human being. Disagree?

When a woman ovulates, her uterus prepares itself for the implantation of a fertilized egg. The 'intervention' you talk about happens automatically. It's true that not all fertilized eggs successfully implant themselves, but it isn't for lack of a place to do so. So this is simply a bad argument.

So because the woman's body automatically intervenes, her deciding to stop her body from doing that intervention is morally wrong. That's messed up on soooo many levels, especially if we apply it to other contexts.

The point, which you didn't address, is that the woman's body must intervene to develop the neonate throughout its gestation. Without her intervention, it certainly will not automatically reach maturity. This is actually a very solid argument against the particular point I'd raised it against, which was the idea that a fertilized egg will, without outside intervention, reach maturity. Instead, it requires outside intervention at every point.

I'll give you that much, at least. But to someone who's seriously considered it and its ramifications, it's simply not effective as an argument, because they've probably already accounted for the points you're trying to bring up, and if they haven't, they have enough of a framework to fit them into.

The potential lies not with a particular sperm or egg, but with the male and female set of reproductive material collectively. With human intervention, these cells have the potential to form a new human being. Disagree?

Why would I disagree? However, that doesn't mean I think it's necessary or wise to force that intervention onto anyone. Potential doesn't override actual, although you should take it into account, just the same as the future doesn't override the present even though you should take the future into account.

Quote from: Azdgari

So because the woman's body automatically intervenes, her deciding to stop her body from doing that intervention is morally wrong. That's messed up on soooo many levels, especially if we apply it to other contexts.

And when did I ever say that it was morally wrong? When you address an argument at what you assume I'm talking about, instead of taking the time to make sure of what I'm talking about, it comes across very much like a strawman, whatever you intend.

Quote from: Azdgari

The point, which you didn't address, is that the woman's body must intervene to develop the neonate throughout its gestation. Without her intervention, it certainly will not automatically reach maturity. This is actually a very solid argument against the particular point I'd raised it against, which was the idea that a fertilized egg will, without outside intervention, reach maturity. Instead, it requires outside intervention at every point.

Except that this 'intervention' happens automatically as part of the process of pregnancy. So, again, trying to argue that a neonate requires intervention in order to survive...doesn't really work that well as an argument. And, for that matter, a human being requires outside 'intervention' at every point in order to survive for more than a few days. Without water or food, which necessarily have to come from outside the body, death is certain within a few days. But if that food and water are available, they can survive a very long time. Naturally, it isn't quite the same thing, but it's reasonably close.

Quote from: Azdgari

Seems to me that the 'potential' argument is only ever put forth by someone who's never really thought about it.

This is the reason I refrained from answering earlier - because the way you're arguing is more than a little insulting. You seem to have the idea in your head that anyone who uses this argument, which you disagree with, cannot have thought it through. Except I have spent a lot of time thinking about it, so I take exception to the insinuation that I haven't done that. Especially when that insinuation is based on assumptions in the first place.

I'll give you that much, at least. But to someone who's seriously considered it and its ramifications, it's simply not effective as an argument, because they've probably already accounted for the points you're trying to bring up, and if they haven't, they have enough of a framework to fit them into.

Quote from: Azdgari

Ipse dixit.

Incorrect. This time, read what I wrote instead of digging yourself in deeper with flawed assumptions.

Why would I disagree? However, that doesn't mean I think it's necessary or wise to force that intervention onto anyone. Potential doesn't override actual, although you should take it into account, just the same as the future doesn't override the present even though you should take the future into account.

I know you're pro-choice, Jaime. Legality is not at issue here. My point is that potential exists all the way along, and conception is an arbitrary point to pick for when potential "begins".

And when did I ever say that it was morally wrong? When you address an argument at what you assume I'm talking about, instead of taking the time to make sure of what I'm talking about, it comes across very much like a strawman, whatever you intend.

If it's not morally relevant, then don't bring it up in a moral discussion.

Except that this 'intervention' happens automatically as part of the process of pregnancy.

Not as part of the process of an aborted pregnancy. Thanks to modern medicine, it's only "automatic" if the woman decides for it to be automatic[1], or if access to that aspect of modern medicine is witheld.

A woman's body does do things she doesn't decide for it to do[2], and that's something she should rationally take into account in her decision-making processes[3]. But should these automatic things her body does really be given any moral weight? I don't think that they should.

So, again, trying to argue that a neonate requires intervention in order to survive...doesn't really work that well as an argument. And, for that matter, a human being requires outside 'intervention' at every point in order to survive for more than a few days. Without water or food, which necessarily have to come from outside the body, death is certain within a few days. But if that food and water are available, they can survive a very long time. Naturally, it isn't quite the same thing, but it's reasonably close.

We were discussing potential though, Jaime - the intervention we're talking about is that required to become a human being, not in order to survive at all. You and I need absolutely no outside intervention in order to become human beings. We already are that. Sustinence is something for which we do need the outside world, but we weren't talking about sustinence.

This is the reason I refrained from answering earlier - because the way you're arguing is more than a little insulting. You seem to have the idea in your head that anyone who uses this argument, which you disagree with, cannot have thought it through. Except I have spent a lot of time thinking about it, so I take exception to the insinuation that I haven't done that. Especially when that insinuation is based on assumptions in the first place.

I wondered about whether I should have posted that bit. Maybe I shouldn't have. But if you're going to insinuate that I'm deliberately using an argument with flaws to convince people who havn't thought about it, then that's more than a little insulting as well.

I'll give you that much, at least. But to someone who's seriously considered it and its ramifications, it's simply not effective as an argument, because they've probably already accounted for the points you're trying to bring up, and if they haven't, they have enough of a framework to fit them into.

Quote from: Azdgari

Ipse dixit.

Incorrect. This time, read what I wrote instead of digging yourself in deeper with flawed assumptions.

Im sorry i did not mean to offend you.I agree with you that if a woman is raped and does not want to have the baby that she can abort it. I was more talking about (early pregnancy/would not be healthy for the woman to have the baby/Cannot support baby) So I do agree with you on your post about rape.-Shaffy

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

I believe a woman should have the choice to abort a baby if she feels like she would not be able to support it or it would not be safe to deliver. What do you guys think? I am very new to the topic due to my young age. -Shaffy

I haven't seen how old you are. You'll want to be cautious of word choice in the future. A woman who aborts isn't aborting a baby. A baby is a stage of life after birth; prior to that it's a fetus, embryo, or zygote depending on developmental stage. Most abortions are done quite early on, usually at the zygote stage.

Why do you think abortion should be restricted to just those who feel they can't support the child? As Jag stated earlier in the thread, and I'm paraphrasing here, abortion isn't an alternative to parenting; it's an alternative to pregnancy.

I urge you to give that some serious thought. Do some research on just what happens to a woman's body during pregnancy and childbirth. Imagine if it were your body those things would happen to. You who would feel the fatigue, gain the weight, go through the morning sickness, decreased bladder capacity, stretching, swelling, and the constipation. All topped off with hours of painful labor, which might involve the cutting of your genitals lest they tear.[1] You could still die too. It's not as common as it used to be, but women still do die while giving birth, and it's not something you can test for. Add to all this that it costs money. Even if you're insured you pay a copay for each doctor visit, you pay part of the cost of the birth itself. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/01/health/american-way-of-birth-costliest-in-the-world.html?pagewanted=all. But wait, there's more! How many people over the months of doctor visits and the delivery will need to poke, prod, and look at your genitals? It’s unpleasant enough for those who want to do it in order to have a baby, how horrible for someone who doesn’t want it at all!

Can you think of any situation where your body, and potentially your life, can legally be used against your will solely for the benefit of another person?

One unit of blood taken from your body by the Red Cross can be used to save the lives of three people. Three people who are as alive as you, who have families, hopes, dreams, fears, and responsibilities. Yet what is giving blood in comparison to even a healthy pregnancy? It takes one hour of your day, the needle pinches a bit, you sit still for a while, eat a snack, then go on with your life, plus it costs no more than your time and the gas it takes to get there.[2] Even though it's proven to save lives, you'll never be forced to do it, because only you have the right to your body or any part of it.

A zygote may be alive, but it has as many hopes, dreams, fears, and memories as your blood cells. It's not a person, yet people advocate forcing women to go through much, much more than a simple blood draw to save its life.

Put yourself in my situation. I’m 32, financially stable and in a healthy, happy relationship. Using your stipulations above I should not be allowed an abortion should my birth control fail and I find myself pregnant. I’ve known since I was younger than you probably are now that I do not want a child. I also believe that with 7 BILLION people on this planet that it is unethical to bring even a single unwanted child into being.

So, should I be forced to carry a pregnancy when I find the physical aspects of it abhorrent and the end result (an unwanted child) is something I’m ethically opposed to doing? Imagine the social backlash I would face for putting up for adoption this child I'm perfectly capable of caring for. What if my husband wants to keep it and I don't? He doesn't want kids either, and would never try to force me to carry a pregnancy, but I doubt he'd be cool with adopting out his child once it's born. If my husband agrees with me to adopt it out, he'll then face social backlash too. What if one of our parents or siblings wants to adopt the child? Do we say no, let it go to strangers, and endure their disappointment or anger? Do we let them, then face the child as it grows up and finds out the truth of its birth? I could also die giving birth, then my husband would be stuck with a kid we never wanted whose birth cost him his wife.

There are many, many reasons why a woman might not want to continue a pregnancy. Even something as seemingly simple as not wanting a child is really not simple at all.

After donating blood you're not made responsible for the well being of these people for the next 18 years either.

I appreciate you clarifying the issue and I now better understand the range of issues and the strong feelings various people feel about abortion. I will try to learn more about such issues before I comment on such hotly contentested issues.-Shaffy

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

Allow?? I hope you just used the incorrect word here, because it sounds and awful lot like you're advocating forcing a woman to get an abortion if she's raped. If a raped woman wants to keep the child it's her business.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

We allow abortion here, too. But Republicans pass laws that are unconstitutional to disregard the Constitution. They preach all the time how they are for the Constitution, and they are, the one from 1776 which is the world they want to live in where only white men vote, women know their place, 12 year old girls give birth, blacks are slaves, other minorities are oppressed, the rich stay rich, the poor stay poor and die from working 18 hr shifts for 15¢ an hour, and always in debt to the people they work for. Educational system is taught by local Christian churches, and only certain people get to go, if they are the right kind of Christian, or convert. Taxes are only paid by the poor, who can't afford to pay them because they only make 15¢ an hour, and already in debted to their employees. Oh, duels will be back, and everyone, including children, will be permitted, by law, to carry a gun wherever they go. This is the Republican party of today, and any traitors will be hung.

-Nam

« Last Edit: November 15, 2013, 02:12:13 AM by Nam »

Logged

Things I've said here:

Quote

I only have a filter for people who do not consistently beg to be belittled, ridiculed, insulted, and demeaned.

Quote

I may believe people, as a whole, should be treated fairly but I also believe those same people are idiots.

Allow?? I hope you just used the incorrect word here, because it sounds and awful lot like you're advocating forcing a woman to get an abortion if she's raped. If a raped woman wants to keep the child it's her business.

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

There are more polite ways to advise a new poster how to make tidier posts. Especially since you know this guy is a middle schooler, what's that 12-13 year old? It's pretty obvious he doesn't have much, if any, experience on a message board.

There are more polite ways to advise a new poster how to make tidier posts. Especially since you know this guy is a middle schooler, what's that 12-13 year old? It's pretty obvious he doesn't have much, if any, experience on a message board.

Protip: Don't be a jerk.

Thank you Wasserbuffel. This is my first time using a forum\message board site. I am also 13 but that is still not an excuse for me making my posts *tidier*. I will try to work on that. Did I make it more tidy in this post?-Shaffy

Logged

We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it.

There is this new invention, its called "Informing, while it is not polite in this case, it sure as hell aint being a jerk.If i reaaaaaaaally wanted to be a jerk i would have said something more like "Expunged.....radda radda, retracted".

Pet as in you're devoting special attention to it, not that I'm equating tulpas with pets.

Ehh...okay...i do admit advertising is lame...*Also...Alexis is kinnnnnnnnnnnnnda like a pet...although...that sounds harsh...*

Logged

Rule 1: No pooftas. Rule 2: No maltreating the theists, IF, anyone is watching. Rule 3: No pooftas. Rule 4: I do not want to see anyone NOT drinking after light out. Rule 5: No pooftas. Rule 6: There is NO...rule 6.

Taking the 'potential' argument to extremes might work with someone who's never really thought about it. I'll give you that much, at least. But to someone who's seriously considered it and its ramifications, it's simply not effective as an argument, because they've probably already accounted for the points you're trying to bring up, and if they haven't, they have enough of a framework to fit them into.

None of this is an actual counter-argument. It is so much hand waving, and nothing else.

I know you're pro-choice, Jaime. Legality is not at issue here. My point is that potential exists all the way along, and conception is an arbitrary point to pick for when potential "begins".

No matter what point you pick, there's going to be at least some arbitrariness. So what matters is whether the basis of the argument is sound, not how 'arbitrary' it is. And I've already conceded that potential isn't the primary moral factor, just one that shouldn't be ignored.

Quote from: Azdgari

If it's not morally relevant, then don't bring it up in a moral discussion.

This is another assumption, and it isn't helping. When you make assumptions - no matter what they are - and proceed as if those assumptions are valid without checking them, it causes more harm than good. To put it very simply, I said nothing at all about the morality of a woman deciding to have an abortion. You are the one who assumed I must be talking about that, and brought it up as if I'd said it was morally wrong for her to do that, when all I actually said was that a woman's body automatically intervenes to keep an implanted neonate alive. And before you say again that I shouldn't have brought that up - why? Why does the biological reality of the situation have no place in a moral discussion?

Quote from: Azdgari

Not as part of the process of an aborted pregnancy. Thanks to modern medicine, it's only "automatic" if the woman decides for it to be automatic[1], or if access to that aspect of modern medicine is witheld.

Which is irrelevant. The biological process is still automatic. What modern medicine does is allow it to be stopped.

Quote from: Azdgari

A woman's body does do things she doesn't decide for it to do[2], and that's something she should rationally take into account in her decision-making processes[3]. But should these automatic things her body does really be given any moral weight? I don't think that they should.

And what if a woman who is pregnant does in fact give moral weight to the neonate's life? It's all well and good for you to say that the state of being pregnant shouldn't be given any moral weight, or for me to say that it should. But it really isn't either of our decisions, is it? Being pro-choice isn't just about women having the right to decide whether to have an abortion or not. It's also about them having the right to decide whether it's moral to have an abortion. And if a woman decides not to have an abortion because she sees the neonate as her future child, or if she decides to have an abortion because she sees the neonate as an unwanted lump of tissue...who has the right to tell her she's wrong, in either case?

Quote from: Azdgari

We were discussing potential though, Jaime - the intervention we're talking about is that required to become a human being, not in order to survive at all. You and I need absolutely no outside intervention in order to become human beings. We already are that. Sustinence is something for which we do need the outside world, but we weren't talking about sustinence.

Personally, I find the difference between a neonate needing sustenance to become a human being, and a person needing sustenance in order to remain a human being, to be more than a bit trivial. The only meaningful difference is that a neonate cannot make moral decisions, which is why we talk about a woman having an abortion, instead of a neonate deciding to be aborted.

Quote from: Azdgari

I wondered about whether I should have posted that bit. Maybe I shouldn't have. But if you're going to insinuate that I'm deliberately using an argument with flaws to convince people who havn't thought about it, then that's more than a little insulting as well.

I did not intend to say that you were deliberately using that argument. It's tricky saying things right on the Internet. I was just about to type something else, and caught that it would have implied exactly the same thing as I just got done saying I didn't intend. It's difficult to put emotions into words sometimes. Suffice it to say that my emotions are telling me one thing, and my intelligence is telling me another.

Quote from: Azdgari

Obviously you have put thought into this topic.

I appreciate you saying that.

Quote from: Azdgari

I said "ipse dixit" because there was nothing in that paragraph other than your own proclamations.

Just because you consider an argument effective, doesn't mean it's always going to be effective. That was the point I was trying to get across. You can't use the same argument against everyone who disagrees with you and expect it to be equally effective. A person who's already considered the argument that you're trying to bring up is going to have counterarguments against it, so it will be far less effective against them (if it is effective at all). That's why I objected to your dismissal of my statement as being ipse dixit.

It does apply, on both counts. You are simply drawing an arbitrary line and saying "here is where potential counts." If there is a logic or rationale behind it, you've not laid it out or elaborated.

What makes you think that I'm applying some arbitrary line and saying, "before this point, potential does not exist, and after this point, it's paramount"? Is it so difficult to understand that I realize that potential exists on both sides of the line I chose to draw, but it isn't some static value that stays the same? If you push a rock up a hill, it is going to have much less potential energy near the bottom than near the top, and so it goes with human reproduction. I'm not talking about something like, "oh, well, this sperm cell might grow up to become another Einstein". That just gets silly. I'm talking about realized potential - not just talking about pushing the rock up the hill, but actually doing it. As you push a rock up a hill, it gains more and more potential energy, and once you push it far enough, it makes better sense to keep going.

I suppose I can see why you had so much trouble understanding. I was thinking of it like potential energy, but a lot of people really do see it as "the next Einstein" or whatever. I've seen that before, but it didn't really register. I have a tendency sometimes to see something and come to totally different conclusions about it, but to not recognize that what I came up with is that much different than what other people came up with. So your post wasn't worthless like I said it was. I apologize for that, and I'll give you a plus to make up for my earlier smite when I get the chance.

... To put it very simply, I said nothing at all about the morality of a woman deciding to have an abortion. You are the one who assumed I must be talking about that, and brought it up as if I'd said it was morally wrong for her to do that, when all I actually said was that a woman's body automatically intervenes to keep an implanted neonate alive. ...

If you do not in fact believe abortion to be a moral negative then I have been tilting at windmills, and have no argument with you.

If you do not in fact believe abortion to be a moral negative then I have been tilting at windmills, and have no argument with you.

See my post to screwtape just now. Between the two of you, I got a better understanding of how I'm thinking on this.

I do consider abortion to be a moral concern, but it's neither a moral positive or a moral negative. It's...how to put this...it's a decision that can only be made by a moral agent, and that should only be made by the moral agents directly involved in it. Does that make sense?

I wasn't all that good at making myself clear. I have a tendency to do that sometimes, especially when it's something that I think should be clear, or at least reasonably clear. It always surprises me when that happens, and not in a pleasant way.